Visitation regime

The Supreme Court (SC) has resolved a divorce case involving a minor child in which the discussion revolved around whether there should be visits by the father with the child. Throughout the process, there were criminal measures that prevented approaching and communicating, and the father went for more than three years without seeing his child. Initially, any visit was denied ; however, the Provincial Court did establish a regime of communications and visits at a Family Meeting Point (FMP), under supervision.

The appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office, requesting that those visits be eliminated due to the presence of a context of gender-based violence and the need to protect the best interests of the child . The mother agreed with the Prosecutor regarding the visits, but also tried to discuss the child support ; the SC clarifies that this issue had already been definitively settled and could not be reopened in that procedure. Regarding visits, the SC

does not accept eliminating them completely. It considers, among other aspects, that the psychosocial report recommended supervised visits to rebuild the bond, that the child stopped mentioning the father and started talking as if he "didn't exist", and that there is a risk that the passage of time will make the parent-child relationship irrecoverable. It also takes into account that the to rebuild the bond that the child stopped mentioning to the father and started talking as if "it didn't exist," and that there is a risk that the passage of time will make the parent-child relationship irrecoverable. It also considers that the criminal conviction was for a specific and isolated incident, and that the prohibition of approach and communication established in the criminal sentence referred to the mother, not the child.

The SC corrects the Court of Appeal because the regime cannot remain undetermined or in the hands of professionals without judicial control. Therefore, it maintains the visits , but specifies them by phases , for 6 months, 2 hours on Saturdays at the PEF; then, extension for another 6 months according to progress, notifying the court; and later, the judge must establish a subsequent regime after hearing the parties and reports, even being able to revoke it if there are breaches or serious risk to the minor.